Candidates appointed by concession cannot claim seniority contrary to accepted appointment conditions.

The petitioners participated in the 1994–95 Sub-Inspector of Police recruitment. Although provisionally selected, they were among 98 candidates who were not appointed against the notified vacancies.

Following a Government decision, G.O.Ms.No.1281 dated 22 September 1999 appointed the 98 candidates as a one-time measure, stipulating that their seniority would be below the 1,000 Sub-Inspectors selected in 1997–98. The petitioners accepted that condition, gave undertakings not to claim 1994–95 seniority, and joined service in 2000.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in R. Ranjith Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu concerning seniority between open-market and in-service candidates selected in the same recruitment, the respondents issued a revised seniority list.

The petitioners challenged the proceedings dated 2 February 2026, seeking seniority based on their 1994–95 selection marks.

They did not, however, challenge the revised final seniority list dated 13 March 2026.

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed under G.O.Ms.No.1281 of 1999 after being excluded from the 1994–95 vacancies, could claim seniority based on their marks in that recruitment by relying on R. Ranjith Singh.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claims were barred by their acceptance of the appointment conditions and by delay and laches.

3. Whether relief could be granted when the petitioners had not challenged the revised final seniority list dated 13 March 2026.

Under G.O.Ms.No.1281 dated 22 September 1999, the 98 candidates were appointed as a one-time measure, with seniority expressly fixed below the 1997–98 recruits; the petitioners accepted that condition and undertook not to claim 1994–95 seniority.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Ranjith Singh required seniority, in the circumstances of that case, to be determined by the selection marks of open-market and in-service candidates appointed through the same recruitment process; it did not extend that rule to candidates who were not selected within the notified vacancies and were appointed later under a separate Government concession.

The Division Bench ruling in W.A.No.30 of 2022 and batch held that candidates appointed under the same 1999 Government Order could not claim seniority alongside the 1994–95 selectees, having accepted the conditional appointment.

The Court also applied the principles of estoppel and delay and laches, and held that the unchallenged revised final seniority list could not be displaced in these proceedings.

The Court found that the petitioners’ appointments did not result from selection within the 1994–95 notified vacancies; they followed a later Government concession after the candidates’ challenge to non-selection had failed.

Because the petitioners accepted the 1999 Order’s seniority condition and joined service on that basis, R. Ranjith Singh—which concerned candidates appointed through the same recruitment process—did not provide them a basis to claim seniority by their 1994–95 marks.

The Court further held that the petitioners had known their seniority position since 2000 and had not challenged it for over 25 years, making their claims untenable for delay and laches.

It also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the revised final seniority list dated 13 March 2026.

Each petitioner was ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs.25,000 to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within four weeks; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.